by AZ Free News | Mar 11, 2021 | News
PHOENIX – A group of Arizona legislators penned a letter to Governor Doug Ducey urging him to make people in the Arizona Long Term Care System a priority when it comes to to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
In the letter, the group of lawmakers came together in bipartisan fashion to praise Ducey and his team for their “demonstrated a willingness to learn and adapt during the vaccine distribution process.”
Dear Governor Ducey,
We want to start by thanking you for your leadership in getting the COVID-19 vaccine in the arms of Arizonans. While it has not been perfect, your team has demonstrated a willingness to learn and adapt during the vaccine distribution process to ensure Arizonans are vaccinated as quickly as possible. In fact, news reports recently stated that Arizona’s vaccine distribution grade went from a “C” last month to an “A” this month according to a report card by Harvard researchers. Under your leadership and in conjunction with our county partners, 1,442,915 Arizonans have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 828,315 Arizonans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that a recent change to the vaccine prioritization has resulted in further delaying one of the most vulnerable populations from receiving the vaccine. Now that the prioritization approach determines eligibility based on age or essential worker status, those who are part of the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) that reside at home who may not be eligible based on their age are forced to the end of the line. Considering these individuals are at a higher risk of contracting and getting sick from COVID-19, we respectfully ask you to consider strategies to get these individuals vaccinated as quickly as possible so they can resume their lives and reinstate social connectedness without fear of contracting the virus. These people, as we feel you understand have a high need for person to person contact as in one of your executive orders maintained that public school districts had to maintain an onsite educational opportunity for these individuals during the pandemic.
We understand there have been many challenges throughout this public health emergency, and yet you have demonstrated compassion for the most vulnerable. We also understand this issue is likely an oversight that can be easily addressed. This group of individuals were scheduled for 1C in vaccinations and right before there opportunity the change in eligibility by age moved them to the bottom. We ask you to please consider our request to address this and let us know how we can be of any assistance in doing so.
Respectfully,
Representative David Cook, Legislative District 8
Representative Brenda Barton, Legislative District 6
Representative Kevin Payne, Legislative District 21
Representative Mark Finchem, Legislative District 11
Representative Joel John, Representative, District 4
Representative Beverly Pingerelli, Legislative District 21
Representative Cesar Chavez, Legislative District 29
Representative Domingo DeGrazia, Legislative District 10
Representative Jennifer Longdon, Legislative District 24
Representative Quang Nguyen, Legislative District 1
Representative Justin Wilmeth, Legislative District 15
Representative Amish Shah, Legislative District 24
Representative Diego Rodriguez, Legislative District 27
by Terri Jo Neff | Mar 10, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
A top official with the National Border Patrol Council said Tuesday that while agents prepare for an influx of immigrants from as far away as Valenzuela they are seeing an uptick of unaccompanied juveniles illegally crossing into the United States.
That is the priority, according to Art Del Cueto, and arguing about whether to call the situation a “crisis” is a waste of time and effort, he told KFYI’s James T. Harris.
Del Cueto grew up in Douglas and has been a U.S. Border Patrol Agent for nearly 20 years in Arizona. He serves as NBPC’s vice president and is host of The Green Line, a podcast available through iHeartRadio.
According to Del Cueto, the public’s attention should not be fixated on whether or not the growing number of illegal crossers at the U.S. / Mexico border should be defined as a crisis. Getting too focused on what word to use simply detracts people from doing something about what is actually happening,
“There’s too many individuals -politicians- that are going back and forth which each other arguing whether it’s a crisis or not,” Del Cueto said. “And I think that effort is better spent trying to figure [how] to stop the problem we have at hand.”
NBPC represents nearly 18,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents across the country. Del Cueto acknowledged that a change of policies following a change in president is to be expected. However, he said “the problem is you can’t remove policies that work and replace them with no policies whatsoever.”
That means everyone needs to stop worrying about whether there is a crisis occurring. Instead, people need to engage in action, Del Cueto believes.
“I think people need to work together and understand… let’s figure out what needs to be done, let’s figure out from past policies what works,” he said. “Let’s think of what we need to do to make sure that our Nation’s borders are secured because it doesn’t affect just one side of the aisle.”
Del Cueto reminded Harris that there have been other past surges of undocumented immigrants which also concerned people at that time.
“But now, whether they want to use the word crisis or they don’t want to use the word crisis I don’t think it matters,” he explained. “At the end of the day there is a huge surge of individuals that are coming into the state.”
by AZ Free News | Mar 10, 2021 | News
PHOENIX – Arizona’s Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has amended its February 3rd lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over its immigration policy that halts nearly all deportations for 100 days, even for those charged with or convicted of crimes.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen has also joined the Arizona lawsuit on behalf of the State of Montana. Arizona and Montana also filed a motion for preliminary injunction asking the court to stop the DHS policies from being implemented.
The original complaint challenged the DHS Memorandum issued on the first day of the Biden Administration, called the “immediate 100-day Pause on Removals.” In addition to the DHS policy, Arizona and Montana are also now challenging the “Interim Guidance” issued by the Acting Director of ICE on February 18, 2021, which tries to supersede the original Memorandum but does not substantively change the policy to pause nearly all deportations of those who entered the country before November 1, 2020.
The amended complaint alleges that the original Memorandum and the Interim Guidance were promulgated without providing notice to Arizona and Montana, in violation of each State’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DHS. Additionally, both policies are in direct violation of federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1231, that requires an alien, who has received a final deportation order, to be removed from the United States within 90 days.
The DHS Memorandum states it is to be in effect for 100 days, and the Interim Guidance states it is to be in effect for 90 days, but no apparent limiting factor is explained. If this action is permitted to stand, DHS could implement these polices for a longer period or even indefinitely, thus allowing the current Administration to unilaterally amend immigration laws without the required congressional action.
Law enforcement officials also are telling the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) that DHS is releasing undocumented aliens without testing them for COVID-19. Many are worried hospitals and medical centers, which have been operating at or near full-capacity due to the pandemic, could be overwhelmed. Possibly even more disturbing, the AGO has learned DHS is releasing potentially dangerous individuals without any coordination with local law enforcement.
The preliminary injunction notes that DHS did not engage in any prior consultation with anyone—inside or outside the federal government—about the anticipated effects and costs of the Removal Moratorium, including the number of aliens with final removal orders who will be released from ICE custody and the detrimental impacts on public safety, health, and state and local finances from such releases. Further, DHS made no attempt to follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment procedures in issuing the Memorandum/Removal Moratorium.
The motion includes declarations from Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, Cochise County Sheriff’s Office Chief of Staff Mark Napier, President for the Yuma Medical Center Dr. Robert Trenschel, and Administrator of the Division of Criminal Investigation at the Montana Department of Justice Bryan Lockerby. These declarations illustrate the harms Arizona and Montana will suffer under the new DHS policies, including unreimbursed costs related to incarceration and healthcare costs.
by Terri Jo Neff | Mar 9, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
While much of the spirited debate about election legislation has centered on what happens after the polls close, several bills have been introduced to change the process of how and when a voter can receive and cast a ballot. And at least two new felony offenses would be created as a result.
A bill sponsored by Rep. Jake Hoffman (R-LD12) would make a felon out of any city or town clerk, or county recorder or other election official who provides an early ballot to a voter did not request it at least 93 days before an election, unless the voter is on the permanent early voting list.
Hoffman’s bill, HB2792, prohibits sending out an early ballot unless the voter complies with all early voting laws, including the request deadline. The intent, according to Hoffman, is to avoid situations seen in many states in the 2020 General Election when election officials mailed out ballots under the guise of avoiding COVID-19 contact at polling places.
Knowingly issuing unauthorized early ballots would be a Class 5 felony, subject to a prison sentence of up to 2.5 years, comparable to the sentence for facilitating prostitution and aggravated assault on a peace officer. Hoffman’s bill cleared the House last week on a 31-28 margin and is now under consideration by the Senate.
Another bill, SB1106, passed the Senate by a 16 to 14 margin last week. It makes it a Class 6 felony for a person who knowingly registers to vote in Arizona “solely for the purpose of voting in an election in this state and without the requisite intent to remain.”
SB1106 sponsored by Sen. J.D. Mesnard (R-LD17) would amend ARS § 16-182, which currently requires a voter in Arizona to be a resident of the state for 29 days preceding an election and to have been registered to vote for the same period. It is now a Class 6 felony for someone to register to vote or to actually vote if the person knew they were not entitled to do so.
But under Mesnard’s bill, a new voter who moves away at some undefined amount of time after an election could have their voting action challenges and then have to prove at trial what their intent was at the time they voted.
A Class 6 felony is punishable by up to two years in prison as well as loss of several rights, including the ability to possess or own firearms. Comparable offenses are witness tampering, possession of drug paraphernalia, and theft of property less than $2,000.
Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-LD23) has had success with several election-related bills, including SB1002 which requires election officials to ensure that the envelopes used by voters to return early ballots do not reveal the voter’s political party affiliation. Her bill easily cleared the Senate on a 20 to 9 margin and is expected to be taken up by the House on Tuesday.
On Monday, the Senate transmitted SB1713, also by Mesnard, to the House on a 16 to 14 margin. The bill adds steps to the vote-by-mail process, so a voter cannot simply sign the affidavit on the ballot envelope and put it in the mailing envelope with the ballot.
SB1713 would also require the voter to include their date of birth on the affidavit and write their driver’s license or an acceptable government-issued ID number on the affidavit before placing it and the ballot in the mailing envelope. There would be a more complicated process for voters who do not have an acceptable government ID card.
If the bill passes, failure to follow any of the new affidavit requirements would cause the submitted ballot to be rejected.
Meanwhile, the House approved a bill last week that requires voters whose polling place uses paper ballots be offered a “ballot privacy folder” when given their ballot, although they do not have to use it. The bill, HB2362 by Rep. John Kavanagh (R-LD23), is now assigned to the Senate Committee on Government.
by AZ Free News | Mar 9, 2021 | Economy, News
PHOENIX – Arizona’s Attorney General has joined a coalition of 12 states in filing a lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s administration over a massive expansion of federal regulations through executive order.
The lawsuit challenges President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, titled “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” The states allege that the Biden Administration did not have the authority to issue binding numbers for the social costs of greenhouse gases to be used in federal regulations, and that the potential stringency of federal regulations that could come from this executive order will stifle manufacturing, harm agriculture, and have serious economic impacts across the country.
Two industries that will be impacted by President Biden’s executive order are manufacturing and agriculture. According to the Arizona Department of Agriculture, the agriculture industry provides $23.3 billion to Arizona’s economy, resulting in 138,000 jobs. Manufacturing is also a key sector and an economic driver in Arizona. In 2019, manufacturers in Arizona produced approximately $31 billion worth of economic output – accounting for 8.4% of the state’s total GDP, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Additionally, the industry has seen strong job growth. As of 2019, there were 177,300 manufacturing jobs in Arizona.
The lawsuit notes that the President’s interagency working group place the social cost of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide at approximately $9.5 trillion; $269 billion for carbon dioxide, $990 billion for methane, and $8.24 trillion for nitrous oxide (assuming similar rates of emission between 2019 and 2020 in the United States, and a discount rate of 3%).
The states argue in the lawsuit that using these interim values could massively expand the scope and reach of the regulatory power of the federal government, potentially impacting the United States’ economy and every household in America.
In arguing that President Biden’s administration did not have the authority to enact this executive order and that this action should be taken by Congress, the lawsuit points to several reasons, including that the executive order did not have statutory authorization to create the working group, nor did the working group have statutory authority to set values for the social costs of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide that “shall be used by regulatory agencies administering statutes pursuant to statutory delegation of authority enacted by congress.”
Further, the lawsuit states that dictating binding values for the social costs of carbon, nitrous oxide, and methane is a legislative action “that the Constitution vests exclusively in Congress through the vesting clause of Article I, § 1 of the Constitution.” The President’s exercise of this legislative authority thus violates the separation of powers, the most fundamental bulwark of liberty.
The lawsuit also alleges that the working group violated the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit points to the fact that there was no public notice or opportunity for public comment before publishing interim estimates, and that the proper weight was not given to the positive benefits of “affordable and reliable domestic energy and agricultural production.”
In addition to Arizona, state attorneys general from Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah joined the suit.
by Terri Jo Neff | Mar 8, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
A Senate Concurrent Resolution that could terminate Gov. Doug Ducey’s March 11, 2020 declaration of emergency will be considered on Monday by the full Senate.
Currently under state law, a non-war state of emergency can only be ended by proclamation of the governor “or by concurrent resolution of the legislature declaring it at an end.” As Ducey has not put forth a plan for termination the current COVID-19 state of emergency any time soon, Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-LD23) seeks to end it with SCR1001.
According to SCR1001, Arizona’s government “was established to protect and maintain individual rights and must frequently return to these principles to secure these rights and the perpetuity of our free government” but that Ducey’s year-old declaration and executive orders have “drastically restricted and suppressed the individual freedoms and economic prosperity of Arizonans.”
SCR1001 cites the fact Arizonans have been “personally responsible and have exceeded expectations in slowing community spread through their own individual behaviors and actions, accepting personal restrictions as a civic duty to prevent disease transmission.”
If SCR1001 clears its Third Reading on Monday it will be transmitted to the House. It would take immediate effect upon passage in the House.
However, legislators have been forewarned by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich on Feb. 17 that Ducey could simply declare a new state of emergency, and even re-institute prior measures, “so long as the conditions for the existence of a state of emergency” are satisfied in accordance with the emergency powers statue.
While Ugenti-Rita’s effort would end the current state of emergency, another Third Reading is slated for Monday for SCR1010 which would require a governor to call a special session of the Legislature at the same time a state of emergency declaration is issued.
But even if Sen. Kelly Townsend’s SCR1010 passes out of the legislature, it must still be approved by voters before the changes to Arizona’s emergency powers law take affect. The Secretary of State would put the issue on the ballot for the next general election.
In fact voters could be asked to choose between Townsend’s immediate legislative special session option and one which gives a governor a few days before needing to call a special session after issuing an emergency proclamation.
SCR1003 sponsored by Sen. Warren Petersen (R-LD12) was approved last month by the Senate. It would terminate a governor’s state of emergency 30 days after issuance unless extended by a Concurrent Resolution of the Legislature. It also requires a legislative session to be called within 10 days if the legislature is not already in session.
Petersen’s SCR1003 has already been transmitted to the House where it awaits committee assignment by the House Speaker Rusty Bowers. As with SCR1010, it would be up to Arizona’s voters whether or not to make the change to a governor’s current emergency powers.
